Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

270 ITR 452Reported decision#15510 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT

Rane Holdings Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1113/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 14A

…a sum of `42,06,000/- in Profit & Loss account towards diminution in value of investment. It is only a provision. The Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court in Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (270 ITR 452), (supra). No other contrary judgment was brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Rane Holdings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1090/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 14A

…a sum of `42,06,000/- in Profit & Loss account towards diminution in value of investment. It is only a provision. The Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court in Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (270 ITR 452), (supra). No other contrary judgment was brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Rane Holdings Ltd., Chennai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in I

ITA 1089/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 14A

…a sum of `42,06,000/- in Profit & Loss account towards diminution in value of investment. It is only a provision. The Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the judgment of Kerala High Court in Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (270 ITR 452), (supra). No other contrary judgment was brought to the notice of the Bench. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same…

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 24/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…under:- “In our opinion, the company in not dealing or trading in shares, securities, debentures and other investments. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 4(xiv) of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) order 2003 are not applicable to the company’’. vs. CIT 270 ITR 452 and prayed for setting aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. On the other hand, the ld. Authorised Representative relied n 13. the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and argued that assessee is a investment company and carrying out its operations through its subsidiary and associate companies and claimed the reduction…

Accel Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 23/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…under:- “In our opinion, the company in not dealing or trading in shares, securities, debentures and other investments. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 4(xiv) of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) order 2003 are not applicable to the company’’. vs. CIT 270 ITR 452 and prayed for setting aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. On the other hand, the ld. Authorised Representative relied n 13. the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and argued that assessee is a investment company and carrying out its operations through its subsidiary and associate companies and claimed the reduction…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Accel Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

ITA 144/CHNY/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.T. Prabhu, DirectorFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…under:- “In our opinion, the company in not dealing or trading in shares, securities, debentures and other investments. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 4(xiv) of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) order 2003 are not applicable to the company’’. vs. CIT 270 ITR 452 and prayed for setting aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. On the other hand, the ld. Authorised Representative relied n 13. the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and argued that assessee is a investment company and carrying out its operations through its subsidiary and associate companies and claimed the reduction…

Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (270 ITR 452) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax